I had the opportunity to compare a 40-2cd against a 40m 4-square over
several years with the 40-2cd at different heights. With the 40-2cd at 120'
the 4-square was sometimes better into asia and deep into Europe, its big
advantage of course was rapid direction switches to grab multipliers to the
south or west while running Europe. When the 40-2cd was at 180' it was
pretty rare for the 4-square to be better, but we still kept it for quick
switches... of course now that both yagi's are broke it will be the
workhorse for the winter contests again.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Parry [mailto:bparry@rgv.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:57
> To: RLVZ@aol.com; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 40-m. 4-Square vs. 40-m. Yagi - Update
>
> I am really surprised to hear that your vertical does better than your XM.
> I
> cannot actually state that I have done any comparisons of the Cushcraft to
> a
> 40 M vertical or 4 square, but I have always felt that my "short-forty"
> was
> sorta magic. Mine is at 1 wavelength or about 135 feet and it really works
> extremely well. I frequently get remarks that I am the loudest signal on
> the band from EU and JA. I usually get through pileups on the first call.
> We
> used to use the same configuration at 6D2X and generated massive pileups
> into EU and JA and was in fact it was our "bread and butter" band.
>
> As you know, those kind of reports do not take the place of real
> comparisons
> like you have done but I would be suspicious of the results that you have
> gotten. I had a problem with my XM 420 this summer. After a lightning
> strike
> it acted like something wasn't right but the SWR was still fine. I took it
> down and the Reflector coils were "fried". Maybe there is a problem with
> your reflector.
>
> Incidentally, I have noticed that some have complained that the antenna is
> not broad banded enough. Mine covers from 7.0 to 7.2 with SWR under 2.0 to
> 1.0. This seems to be pretty reasonable for this antenna, and the antenna
> still works fine above 7.2.
>
> I would use whatever works the best, though!
>
> Happy New Year
>
> Bill W5VX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of RLVZ@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:24 AM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] 40-m. 4-Square vs. 40-m. Yagi - Update
>
> Guys,
>
> Thank You for the quick replies that stated the "Shorty-Forty should be
> doing
> much better". That's what I originally thought too or I wouldn't have put
> up
> the antenna.
>
> Some asked "what type of Shorty-Forty"? It's a new Cushcraft XM-240 that
> was
> cut for Mid-Band. The resonant frequency turned out to be 20khz higher
> than
>
> the chart. (1.2 to 1 SWR).
> Tomorrow I will take a look at the Shorty-Forty with a AIM 4170 antenna
> analyzer.
>
> Since several people indicated that the Forty-Shorty should be working
> much
> better than it is I need to back track and clarify the ground system of
> the
> 1/4
> wave vertical. I didn't tell the whole story about the 1/4 wave vertical:
> it's mounted 30' out in a saltwater river that has a pretty clear
> saltwater
> path
> to Europe, Africa, and South America. (I'm about 2 miles from the
> Atlantic
> Ocean and there are numerous small barrier Islands in between... but it's
> mostly saltwater river) The reason I listed "average ground conductivity
> and a
> reasonable radial system" is because the vertical has no radials and just
> a
> single corroded ground strap going down into the salt water... and I've
> been
> told
> that isn't sufficient to connect to the saltwater.
>
> Perhaps the vertical is making better connection with the saltwater than
> expected? If so, would that be the reason the simple 1/4 wave vertical
> with
> no
> radials is equal in performance to the Shorty-Forty at 90' on DX qso's...
> or
> do
> you still think I have a problem with the Shorty-Forty?
>
> One more thing, to the West where the vertical does not have a saltwater
> path, the Shorty-Forty is 10-15db better. But since the vertical has no
> radials
> and no saltwater to the West I'd expect at least that much difference.
>
> 73,
> Dick- K9OM
>
>
> In a message dated 12/31/08 11:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> RLVZ@aol.com
> writes:
>
> > I'm not impressed with the performance of a 2-el. Forty-Shorty at 90' on
> DX
> >
> > qso's. While it's great for 1,000 mi. or less... my single 1/4 wave
> > vertical
> > is just as good on the average DX contact. (since the Shorty-Forty at
> 90'
>
> > doesn't have any gain at low radiation angles... I guessed I should have
> > expected
> > as much)
> >
> > Question: Considering flat terrain, average ground conductivity, and a
> > reasonable radial system: do you predict that a 40-m. 4-Square would
> > outperform the
> > 90' Shorty-Forty by 3-5dB on the average DX qso?
> >
> > 73.
> > Dick- K9OM
> >
>
>
>
>
> **************
> New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|